Will Vista Run on Your Computer?

[Angelcurio]

Well, to put it simply, we are all screwed:


Will Vista Run on Your Computer?

The computing world is abuzz with rumors, and once in a while even facts, about Microsoft's new version of Windows, dubbed Vista. It's supposed to come out late this year for corporate customers, and in early 2007 for consumers. It will feature a really cool new interface, support for 64-bit processors and new technologies, and new ways to search for data on your computer. It will also be much more secure than any Microsoft OS that came before it; it will feature a protected administrator account, parental controls, and more tightly debugged code so that you're not as likely to get malware.

That's all great. But will you be able to run it on the computer that you currently own? Statistically speaking, probably not.

Let's start with hardware minimum requirements. Before you even install Vista, you'll have to have seven gigs for it on your hard drive - compare that to one and a half for XP. That shouldn't be an issue now that drives in the hundreds of gigabytes are commonplace, but most people only have 256 or 512 MB of RAM. When you boot up Vista for the first time, before you start any programs, it will eat up about 800 MB. If you want to play games, you better have at least 2 GB of RAM. For higher-end games, 4 GB is going to become par for the course very quickly.

Furthermore, if you want to use that cool new interface, called Vista Glass, you better have a decent graphics card. The majority of computers in use today have Intel integrated graphics, but most Intel IGPs don't support Glass. The only one that does is the GMA950 - so if you have a low-end Dell, or a non-Core-Duo laptop with integrated graphics, you'll be stuck with the basic Vista interface, which looks a lot like XP's. Why upgrade in that situation?

Okay, so there are reasons to upgrade still. For example, XP won't support HD-DVD or Blu-Ray; you'll need Vista for that. But in order to placate the piracy-paranoid MPAA, Microsoft had to put in a feature called PVP-OPM. Essentially, PVP-OPM means you have to have an HDCP (High-Definition Copy Protection) compliant monitor and an HDCP-compliant video card. If you have practically any LCD with DVI currently on the market today, it won't work; you'll have to buy a new one to run Vista. If you don't, you'll get a message that says "Monitor Revoked" and you won't be able to see anything on your screen. In other words, if you just dropped $1000 on a Dell 2405FPW, you'll have to upgrade to the HDCP-compliant 2407FPW to run Vista. I'm sure Dell will be happy to get your money a second time.

On top of that, you'll need a new video card, because even though many manufacturers were touting HDCP-compliant video cards, they were essentially lying about the cards' capabilities. You may have read about this scandal a few weeks back; suffice it to say that companies like ATI are now producing HDCP-compliant cards, but that they weren't just a short time ago and that even now you have to check that the card supports HDCP before you buy.

Well, maybe you have a CRT or an analog LCD and don't intend to watch high-def content on your computer. You're not in the clear yet, because many of Vista's new security features will require a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) on your motherboard. A few business-oriented prebuilt computers have TPMs, but practically none of the motherboards on sale for BYO configurations and practically none of the consumer-oriented prebuilts have TPMs. So you'll need a new motherboard too.

So let's tally up the components you need. You'll need to buy more RAM, a new video card, a new monitor, and a new motherboard. And then as if that weren't bad enough, you'll have to buy Vista itself. At that point you'll go from being mad about having to upgrade so many components to downright confused about what to get, because there will be twenty different versions of Vista. I'm not going to bother listing them all, so you can go to this site to take a gander.

So, when you see someone on the forums ask whether their new build will run Vista, you know the answer: "Probably not."

Link: http://www.pcmech.com/show/kudos/919/

[The Butcher]

While guess M$ already needs to go back to the drawing board for they new OS. Hopefully one that works with the stuff that is out.

[Varsh]

Are you sure that this is going to be fact? If this was to be true you'll see most computer literate people jumping ship straight away to another OS, and most likely a lot of games companies will start to develop for other OSes too simply because of all the trouble most people will go through to even get a game running devently.

Now the good old *RMs (X Rights Managements), this is getting ridiculous, and for starters the MPAA just can't do this, for instance in Canada if you're buying media to burn music and movies to then you've already been paying the commercial sector on what you've downloaded, I don't know exactly though someone from Canada will be able to clarify me on that one. As for the EU, MS have already a bad reputation about monopoly, forceful software, and RMs, so MS will have to change their software according to European laws, in fact if this was true (which tbh doesn't seem right) they'll most certainly have to change their attitudes and give the Europeaners something completely different.

[PeanutButterMunky]

800MB?!?!?! That's ridiculous. :? Can't you just take off all the GUI features like you can in XP? Something about this doesn't seem right.

[proof]

Thats outragous. I just bought a 6800 and have jsut redone my hole PC, and for what, a OS that will hardly change anything?
Microsoft have some thinking to do, FAST!

[badz_ps3]

half their "great inovations" for vista are just eye candy pieces of bs. which of course in turn would explain these ridiculous hardware requirements. the average n00b (home user) just goes "ohhhh prettyyy that must mean its great! lets get it!!). :lol:

all that crap about MPAA restrictions on monitors and video cards??? wtf dude. thats SUCH bull. someone grab a beta copy and start workin on some cracks already will ya? :lol: :lol:

[PeanutButterMunky]

If it's just the GUI that's causing this, you can turn off a lot of settings to solve the issue. If it's something else entirely...well...I dunno.

[siren]

Vista is a lot better at memory management than XP. It will use extra memory to speed up the OS if you have it available and free it up for other apps when they want/need it.

I should be getting a new CTP soon to validate, but the last build I used ran just fine, even for games, on my 3.06ghz HT Intel w/ 1gb DDR333 and a GeForceFX 5900 w/ 128mb Ram, even with Glass on.

Btw, Glass is really pretty.

Besides that, if you want real info about what Vista has feature wise rather than this garbage, I recommend you check out www.winsupersite.com

Vista is a lot more than just Glass... this is a prime example of extremely poor journalism.

[fooster]

Vista will most likely be heavy on ram and graphics considering those are two high points microsoft is aiming for.
If I were you, stack up on ram and a good graphics card with lots of ram on-board.

[Ricokillercon]

So is 800mb requirement really true...because that means you would need at least 1gb of memory...when you actually buy a computer with vista.

By the way is is possible to buy XDR ram for a normal computer?

[PeanutButterMunky]

So is 800mb requirement really true...because that means you would need at least 1gb of memory...when you actually buy a computer with vista.
No. Did you miss siren's post?

Thanks for clearing that up, siren.

[Ricokillercon]

He didn't say whether or not it would need 800mb or not..and i checked the site and didn't find anything on that. And he is running it on his comp with 1GB or ram already.

[PeanutButterMunky]

It will compensate for the amount or RAM you have. Also...a gig of RAM is cheap these days anyway. Most of today's apps and software require quite a bit of RAM.

[siren]

He didn't say whether or not it would need 800mb or not..and i checked the site and didn't find anything on that. And he is running it on his comp with 1GB or ram already.

Need is a realative term. Remember that all computer users have different needs from an operating system.

I would bet that technically Vista will only require around 256mb of Ram. More than likely it will recommend either 512mb or 1gb. Most entry level PCs will likely ship with 512mb of ram for Vista.

But let us not forget that Vista isn't even close to being Just XP with a pretty UI. That extra Ram is being put to a lot of good use on the system.

I am hoping to load up a new CTP of Vista tonight. If I get it up, I will try to provide some extra info on its RAM utilization. I can knock my system down to 512mb easy enough to see how it runs there as well.

[PeanutButterMunky]

If I get it up, I will try to provide some extra info on its RAM utilization. I can knock my system down to 512mb easy enough to see how it runs there as well.
Cool. That would definitely be helpful.

[Ricokillercon]

He didn't say whether or not it would need 800mb or not..and i checked the site and didn't find anything on that. And he is running it on his comp with 1GB or ram already.

Need is a realative term. Remember that all computer users have different needs from an operating system.

I would bet that technically Vista will only require around 256mb of Ram. More than likely it will recommend either 512mb or 1gb. Most entry level PCs will likely ship with 512mb of ram for Vista.

But let us not forget that Vista isn't even close to being Just XP with a pretty UI. That extra Ram is being put to a lot of good use on the system.

I am hoping to load up a new CTP of Vista tonight. If I get it up, I will try to provide some extra info on its RAM utilization. I can knock my system down to 512mb easy enough to see how it runs there as well.

Well i was just asking becuase i thought 800mb was a little steep.


I also want to know is it worth it for me to wait to make a new comp for vista...or build my new pc now. Is vista soo much better?

[The Butcher]

Are you sure that this is going to be fact? If this was to be true you'll see most computer literate people jumping ship straight away to another OS, and most likely a lot of games companies will start to develop for other OSes too simply because of all the trouble most people will go through to even get a game running devently.

Now the good old *RMs (X Rights Managements), this is getting ridiculous, and for starters the MPAA just can't do this, for instance in Canada if you're buying media to burn music and movies to then you've already been paying the commercial sector on what you've downloaded, I don't know exactly though someone from Canada will be able to clarify me on that one. As for the EU, MS have already a bad reputation about monopoly, forceful software, and RMs, so MS will have to change their software according to European laws, in fact if this was true (which tbh doesn't seem right) they'll most certainly have to change their attitudes and give the Europeaners something completely different.

From the understanding I have over the Canadian copyright laws (am Canadian), as long as you don't sell pirated versions its legal. The RIAA isn't even able to take anybody to court over downloading songs here. Illegal songs for all. But don't try doing it with Canadian movies or songs since they will get pissed.

[Trinity]

I dont care what you people thin..but ms screwed me over and over, so i wont buy this so called "vista". I bought a pc with xp (yes xp sucks IMO, but it was for gaming) and i found out im in love with Apple. Feel sorry for the people that will be getting rip off by ms again.

(Yes im exercising my freedom of speech, got to love it.)

Thanks for the share Angel.

BTW is ballmer going to do the vista commercial? The man is funny

[Ricokillercon]

Trinity sorry to break it to you...but Apple is geting Vista too.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Trinity sorry to break it to you...but Apple is geting Vista too.
That doesn't make any sense, Rico. No...Apple PCs run on OS X.

[Ricokillercon]

I thought they apple was joining the windwo banwagon. Specially after putting intel chips in the macs. I could just be a rumor....thought.

[PeanutButterMunky]

I thought they apple was joining the windwo banwagon. Specially after putting intel chips in the macs. I could just be a rumor....thought.
Um...no. They're using Intel chips for various reasons...one being the PowerPC chips ran too hot. Apple's next operating system is OS 10.5 Leopard. They're not going to randomly flush 5-6 years of work down the toilet. That's a very poor rumor based on lack of knowledge about what's going on with Apple. They've explained their reasons already.

[Ricokillercon]

Oh ok...i don't pay much attention to macs...

[PeanutButterMunky]

Yeah...I can see that. ;)

[Ricokillercon]

Well my old school had them...i hated using them. I didn't have my own pc at the time and had to use the schools. Although people say windows suck...i like that its fairly easy to use.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Well my old school had them...i hated using them.
That is the worst excuse on earth. The ones at schools are generally very old running a completely different OS (OS 9, which is nothing like OS X) or are just slow in general. That's like having Windows 95 on your school computers and saying you hate Windows.

[Ricokillercon]

No they where very fast...my HS was a boarding shool...they even had DVD burners with them.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Well...if ya don't like it ya don't like it. What were they exactly?

[Ricokillercon]

Don't remember...i'll go ask a friend. They upgrade 2x during the 4 years i was there. They just upgraded again this year to new G5's Dual core ones...they use them for classes mostly.

I think the ones i remember from before that where the ones that had the screen and all the tower in them. My friend doesn't remember either...its been 2 years and we hated macs.

[Nighthawk]

Oh word. I find it hard enough to upgrade my computer, let alone to a 4GB thing. Wasn't there a rumour that you could use a USB pen drive for RAM?

[udontneed2know]

I've known this for years, but people just called me a Microsoft hater when I spoke up about it.

I've known people working on Vista for many, many years now and all of them just kind of smirked when I asked what kind of computer would be needed to run the thing. It was one of those, " god man, you don't want to know " smirks. When Microsoft made their demonstrations at the conference early in the year, I simply laughed my ass off when Gates kept saying " this is what your computer will be able to do with Vista ".

Nope, 95% of peoples computers will die a horrible death trying to run that joke of a 5 year in the making GUI.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Nope, 95% of peoples computers will die a horrible death trying to run that joke of a 5 year in the making GUI.
You should read what siren wrote.

[udontneed2know]

Siren always tries to defend Microsoft products. Even when theres no use for it. Article specifically states that its just not the RAM that is the problem, you have to have a pretty much brand new Monitor display just to SEE whats going on in Vista.

The Ram situation is simple. If you want to run Vista just like XP then you won't need the extra RAM, but still will need a ton. But then, whats the point of having Vista? Not much, except that supposed new security which I laugh at considering Microsoft has said the exact same thing about Windows 98, 2000, NT and XP. Yet theres over 30 security updates for XP alone.

If you want to utilize the new 3D effects, expect a need of around 2GB of RAM. If you want to run games with Vista, expect 3-4GB of RAM needs.

What Siren wrote would account for about 10% of the problems that Vista will create for users.

[prometheus]

If you consider the way Microsoft's business model is going, though, it makes a little more sense. I suspect that they sell most of their copies of Windows bundled with new computers from OEMs. So, maybe it makes sense that they would have high system requirements--people will need a new computer to run Vista, and Vista is intended to run on new computers.

I think the reason Microsoft prefers bundling Windows with OEM computers is that it's much harder to pirate, and piracy is one of their biggest problems right now.

[badz_ps3]

why is it much harder to pirate if u buy it pre-installed?

[prometheus]

why is it much harder to pirate if u buy it pre-installed?

Because when you buy a new computer from some of the big manufacturers, like Dell, it is IMPOSSIBLE to buy a computer WITHOUT Windows. So you're forced into buying it whether you want to or not. Plus, they often won't give you a Windows CD, but will just pre-load it on the hard drive or give you some kind of "System Restore Disc" instead.

So, if you buy a new computer, (from certain big manufacturers), you are forced into buying Windows. (You can't just buy a new computer without Windows and load a pirated copy onto it. At least, not when you buy from Dell.)

[Varsh]

Actually you can ask the distributor to not install anything on your computer, afterall it's their customers they have to keep, so if someone says "do not install Windows on the machine, just leave it blank" then that's what they'll do, you're not forced into buying anything, it's only there for those that don't have Windows in the first place.

I do wish that they'd start preinstalling Linux though, it's about time that started happening.

[badz_ps3]

why is it much harder to pirate if u buy it pre-installed?

Because when you buy a new computer from some of the big manufacturers, like Dell, it is IMPOSSIBLE to buy a computer WITHOUT Windows. So you're forced into buying it whether you want to or not. Plus, they often won't give you a Windows CD, but will just pre-load it on the hard drive or give you some kind of "System Restore Disc" instead.

So, if you buy a new computer, (from certain big manufacturers), you are forced into buying Windows. (You can't just buy a new computer without Windows and load a pirated copy onto it. At least, not when you buy from Dell.)


sorry dude but ur totally wrong.. that is called monopolization.. you can not force something onto a consumer especially if they specifically ask for it not to be installed. plus if you already bought a copy of windows to upgrade ur old machine but now thats the machine ur tossing, the distributor/microsoft cant force you to buy another copy of windows. (simply put no one can force you to buy something). This goes along with how MS got into trouble with pre-installing IE and outlook and windows messenger etc etc.

and secondly if u do decide to get it pre-installed, that restore cd ur talkin about is a full version of windows. tru the dell ones are crappy cause they will only give u full functionability when re-installed on ur dell machine (it recognizes what hardware you have installed in ur pc and will not allow it to be installed on machines different then what you bought). but if u just rip the disc to ur computer someone can (and prolly has) re-coded it to get around the hardware check and then theres ur pirated copy of windows.

[MiNiMaL_sAnItY]

vista will run fine on my comp. :D

[:mn:]

i wish but i tryed out the last one thanks to my lucky freind and my computer was well fast on it but i cant be bothered to reinstall a OS on this computer so im going to get a computer that is built for OS

[proof]

Well i am running XP at the moment and have just downloaded Vista. I also have Acronis Disk Manager Suite so i have partitions my harddrive and and going to install a bootloader, so then i can test it.
I will be using it by the end of the week.

[splittyjon]

Grim-Reaper tell us how your testing goes of Vista. I think it will be good to see how the beta or whatever it is works from a first hand account instead of some random person from a computer site.

[proof]

Yeah, sure thing mate. I hear the version im getting is quite stable, we will soon find out.
Ill list my specs as well when i tell you, but someone else has to post, or it would be a double post :P

(New Sig + Avatar:D Curtasy of Tribunal (The legend)

[ROFLcopters.RyuuForce]

I'm gonna wait when Vista comes out to see how everyone handles it.
If it's not good, im going to Linux. :?

Windows XP is a decent operating system as it is.

Even though it's basically a door with 4000 locks, but has no walls surrounding it.

[Nighthawk]

Yeah, I agree with splittyjohn, it'll be much better to hear a verdict on Vista from a forum regular than from a shady reviewer on the internet. I probably will be getting Vista, if it has enough new features (Doom 3 assisting) that impress me. Otherwise, what's the point. XP's fine, at least until Vista gets a price drop.

[adz1992]

well if i remember vista was ment for new computers i dont like MS much im using linux suse 10.0 right now and i dont see the reson to change os but if the vista finerly brings security aswell as bing user friendly ill get it as im naggin my dad to get me a new computer later this year hopefully 1 with a blu-ray drive but no hopes for that

[SpaceMonkeyDave]

yes microsoft, you need to make a "utlra-lite" version!
you hear me bill frickin gates!? an ultra lite version!!!!!! :evil:


as for vista itselft, i might get my legal copy from the college when it comes in and get it for free, well its how i got xp! :lol:

[siren]

Siren always tries to defend Microsoft products. Even when theres no use for it. Article specifically states that its just not the RAM that is the problem, you have to have a pretty much brand new Monitor display just to SEE whats going on in Vista.

The Ram situation is simple. If you want to run Vista just like XP then you won't need the extra RAM, but still will need a ton. But then, whats the point of having Vista? Not much, except that supposed new security which I laugh at considering Microsoft has said the exact same thing about Windows 98, 2000, NT and XP. Yet theres over 30 security updates for XP alone.

If you want to utilize the new 3D effects, expect a need of around 2GB of RAM. If you want to run games with Vista, expect 3-4GB of RAM needs.

What Siren wrote would account for about 10% of the problems that Vista will create for users.

Ohh please stop already.

Ok, I updated to a new build of Vista and now my regular Ram usage has dropped to around 450mb. You can see this using a sidebar gadget provided in the OS.

Frankly, if my computer can run it, any decent system bought in the last 2 years should be able to ($600 or more). This is with Glass and everything.

Will a faster system be better for it, of course. But stop with the "If its from MS it has to run like crap" argument.

And where does the "new monitor" thing come from. That is absolute crap. Why would you need a new monitor to "see" what is going on?

I am running Vista on an 8 year old Sony G400 Trinitron monitor. It runs just fine.

I have scaled my resolution as low as 1024x768 to as high as 2048x1536. No problems at any of the resolutions in displaying the desktop with all 3D effects on.

Why would you even think you need 2gb for the effects? Once again, I am doing this with a 128mb GeForceFX 5950 and only using 450mb of my 1gb available ram, which is only DDR333.

I have also run World of Warcraft on this with no problem. As a matter of fact, it runs smoother than under Windows XP as far as I can tell, with the same quality settings. (have not performed any actual Frame Rate analysis yet).

Now about that 10%, what do you expect to be the huge problems?

[SE fanboy]

So Siren I was wondering if a computer can run XP, would it run vista better?

[badz_ps3]

if u work for a MCP and have access to MSDN subscribers library, then you can get ur hands on longhorn and vista for testing.. i tried installing vista on VMWare, but it was crashing. I dont feel like setting up a partition for a dual boot right now tho i have done it many a time in the past. plus these betas im not sure if theyll give the truest results because im sure all the bells and whistles are not running yet. only time can tell how vista will shape up.

[siren]

So Siren I was wondering if a computer can run XP, would it run vista better?

Depends, seriously.

If you have a 800mhz with 256mb of Ram and a Intel i815 integrated graphics processor, not a chance.

If you have a computer with a powerful enough GPU to enable glass, thus offloading a significant portion of your desktop rendering to the GPU and freeing up CPU resources for other application, and at least 1gb of Ram, then it will run much better.

This question is nothing more than a trick question though, so I don't feel the need to go into more details.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Siren always tries to defend Microsoft products. Even when theres no use for it. Article specifically states that its just not the RAM that is the problem, you have to have a pretty much brand new Monitor display just to SEE whats going on in Vista.

The Ram situation is simple. If you want to run Vista just like XP then you won't need the extra RAM, but still will need a ton. But then, whats the point of having Vista? Not much, except that supposed new security which I laugh at considering Microsoft has said the exact same thing about Windows 98, 2000, NT and XP. Yet theres over 30 security updates for XP alone.

If you want to utilize the new 3D effects, expect a need of around 2GB of RAM. If you want to run games with Vista, expect 3-4GB of RAM needs.

What Siren wrote would account for about 10% of the problems that Vista will create for users.

Ohh please stop already.

Ok, I updated to a new build of Vista and now my regular Ram usage has dropped to around 450mb. You can see this using a sidebar gadget provided in the OS.

Frankly, if my computer can run it, any decent system bought in the last 2 years should be able to ($600 or more). This is with Glass and everything.

Will a faster system be better for it, of course. But stop with the "If its from MS it has to run like crap" argument.

And where does the "new monitor" thing come from. That is absolute crap. Why would you need a new monitor to "see" what is going on?

I am running Vista on an 8 year old Sony G400 Trinitron monitor. It runs just fine.

I have scaled my resolution as low as 1024x768 to as high as 2048x1536. No problems at any of the resolutions in displaying the desktop with all 3D effects on.

Why would you even think you need 2gb for the effects? Once again, I am doing this with a 128mb GeForceFX 5950 and only using 450mb of my 1gb available ram, which is only DDR333.

I have also run World of Warcraft on this with no problem. As a matter of fact, it runs smoother than under Windows XP as far as I can tell, with the same quality settings. (have not performed any actual Frame Rate analysis yet).

Now about that 10%, what do you expect to be the huge problems?
That pretty much sums it up right there. This article is ridiculous.

[Metri]

yes microsoft, you need to make a "utlra-lite" version!
you hear me bill frickin gates!? an ultra lite version!!!!!! :evil:


You could call Microsoft and ask them for Starter Edition. :lol:

[Pink]

So Siren I was wondering if a computer can run XP, would it run vista better?
If you have a 800mhz with 256mb of Ram and a Intel i815 integrated graphics processor, not a chance.


:lol: These are my computer specs exactly. I'm kind of surprised my PC can handle XP pro with Mcafee Virus scan and MS anti spy so well.

Anyway, i don't understand why people are complaining still. If worst comes to worst all you have to do is turn off the glass effect. No one buys a OS to look at it :|. You buy it for its updated features with security.

[andres]

Eric, sent you an email regarding a Wolfenstein competition.

Only UK entries though.